The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Spikily on January 09, 2018, 05:40:20 PM
-
So while I was talking to my friends we have come up with the question ‘How would mountains and escalation would work?’ Because if it was flat it would only be plains, right? So wtih that being said, hoe would it work?
-
The theory is about how the earth is not a sphere, not that it is just a straight plane. Smh lul
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes
Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma within the earth's mantle
Ok, I already asked about this, but how does acceleration make magma.
The previous answer was that the acceleration works like Gravity in RE model.
The problem here is that the pressure won't lead to heat that will melt rock and make magma.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes
Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma within the earth's mantle
Ok, I already asked about this, but how does acceleration make magma.
The previous answer was that the acceleration works like Gravity in RE model.
The problem here is that the pressure won't lead to heat that will melt rock and make magma.
Pressure increase of a substance causes an increase in heat, because the molecules are being crushed into a more confined space and they are vibrating against each other quicker.
-
This sentence from that Wiki page interested me
At the Ice Wall there are subduction plates, where the continents recede and recycle
I thought no-one had been to the ice wall. That is the evidence for that?
-
Spikily,
The flat earth means a planar earth. It doesn't mean a smooth earth. I don't know if you're being serious or are just resorting to strawman and the appeal to ridicule fallacies. Regardless, mountains and mountain-like geologic structures are simply the result of magmatic convection and rising magma that hardens.
-
This sentence from that Wiki page interested me
At the Ice Wall there are subduction plates, where the continents recede and recycle
I thought no-one had been to the ice wall. That is the evidence for that?
Between Antarctica and the rest of the continents of the world there are subduction zones (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/ConMarRJS.jpg).
-
Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.
-
Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.
Well, Tom what do you say to this? You have been rejecting evidences we throw at you because they are based on round earth model. How come you are just accepting this information.
For you to argue that there is evidence that ice wall exist, then you need to come up with the evidence that does not rely on round earth data. This means you cannot use most of the data on internet.
-
Our position is that only NASA and Co. are involved in a Conspiracy.
-
Our position is that only NASA and Co. are involved in a Conspiracy.
Well, no. When we used airplane flight time data(in 3DGeek's post debunking flat earth map), you rejected it. Does this mean all airlines are part of the conspiracy?
Also, you rejected GPS data because it was based on round earth model. How does this GPS relates to the conspiracy?
These are just a few of the evidences you rejected, Tom. Don't use double standard on evidences!
-
Our position is that only NASA and Co. are involved in a Conspiracy.
Well, no. When we used airplane flight time data(in 3DGeek's post debunking flat earth map), you rejected it. Does this mean all airlines are part of the conspiracy?
I didn't claim Conspiracy. I was concerned that the distance calculated based on a Round Earth Coordinate system did not translate to an actual distance.
Also, you rejected GPS data because it was based on round earth model. How does this GPS relates to the conspiracy?
Same deal as above. If your GPS device is saying that a coordinate point is x miles away according to spherical coordinates, how do you actually know whether it is accurate or not? You would need to compare it to another source. In that thread believe that I posted links showing people complaining about GPS devices not being accurate.
-
I guess my question would be what is your basis for thinking it inaccurate?
I mean, GPS works. It demonstrably works. I just had a look on my phone and it told me where it thinks I am and it's right, that is where I am.
At the weekend we took a trip to see some family, my phone told me how long it would take based on the distance, traffic conditions and I presume it takes into account stuff like speed limits.
And it did pretty much take that long.
These aren't very scientific tests admittedly but some could be done. A lot of people use GPS to get around these days and as a system it demonstrably works.
What would be the cause for doubting it?
-
Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.
Why would the view of mountain formation remain exclusive to the RE model?
What makes the current views of mountain exclusive only to RE?
-
Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.
Why would the view of mountain formation remain exclusive to the RE model?
What makes the current views of mountain exclusive only to RE?
I don't think some of these ideas are exclusively RE.
The Himalayas are caused by the plate India is on slowly pushing north. That is why Everest is still growing.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659
In the RE model the tectonic plates fit together like a jigsaw but there is no "edge" to a globe.
In the flat earth model the plates would be the same but that would mean the entire edge of the disc has to be the edge of those plates.
And what happens at that edge? In the RE model a subduction zones are boundaries where two plates converge, and one plate is thrust beneath the other.
But in the flat earth model there is no other plate because this is the edge. So what happens?
Subduction zones in RE are areas prone to earthquakes and volcanoes, if the edge of the disc is one big subduction zone then we're lucky the ice wall doesn't melt or crack.
I guess the question is if plate tectonics is accepted in the FE model then that does raise questions about what happens at the edge.
-
I guess my question would be what is your basis for thinking it inaccurate?
I mean, GPS works. It demonstrably works. I just had a look on my phone and it told me where it thinks I am and it's right, that is where I am.
At the weekend we took a trip to see some family, my phone told me how long it would take based on the distance, traffic conditions and I presume it takes into account stuff like speed limits.
And it did pretty much take that long.
These aren't very scientific tests admittedly but some could be done. A lot of people use GPS to get around these days and as a system it demonstrably works.
What would be the cause for doubting it?
I don't see what this has to do with mountain formation.
-
I don't see what this has to do with mountain formation.
I agree it is unrelated, but it is worth acknowledging that it's unfair of you to respond to it a couple of times and then complain that you're still being talked to about it.
You should shut down off-topic comments instead of responding to them, not respond a few times and then shut them down. That just comes off as trying to dodge tough questions!
-
Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.
Why would the view of mountain formation remain exclusive to the RE model?
What makes the current views of mountain exclusive only to RE?
I don't think some of these ideas are exclusively RE.
The Himalayas are caused by the plate India is on slowly pushing north. That is why Everest is still growing.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659
In the RE model the tectonic plates fit together like a jigsaw but there is no "edge" to a globe.
In the flat earth model the plates would be the same but that would mean the entire edge of the disc has to be the edge of those plates.
And what happens at that edge? In the RE model a subduction zones are boundaries where two plates converge, and one plate is thrust beneath the other.
But in the flat earth model there is no other plate because this is the edge. So what happens?
Subduction zones in RE are areas prone to earthquakes and volcanoes, if the edge of the disc is one big subduction zone then we're lucky the ice wall doesn't melt or crack.
I guess the question is if plate tectonics is accepted in the FE model then that does raise questions about what happens at the edge.
Why exactly can't the Antarctic plate be a stationary "frame" around the earth's perimeter? The Antarctic plate boundary is miles away from the Antarctic land. The boundary is in the oceans.
-
Why exactly can't the Antarctic plate be a stationary "frame" around the earth's perimeter? The Antarctic plate boundary is miles away from the Antarctic land. The boundary is in the oceans.
What evidence do you have for the statement that the "boundary is in the oceans."? If what you said was true about an imaginary plate circling the outer edge of the world, it would be very geologically hot. The forces onvolved with containing all of the other plates would form huge mountain ranges and volcanoes. Those don't exist. Would you like to make up another hypothesis to explain the impossible?
-
Why exactly can't the Antarctic plate be a stationary "frame" around the earth's perimeter? The Antarctic plate boundary is miles away from the Antarctic land. The boundary is in the oceans.
Well, the most obvious reason is that the earth is a globe and thus doesn't have a perimeter.
Given that you guys can't even create a map you can all agree on it's weird that you're so confident of where plate boundaries are.
I wonder why you randomly agree with the science of plate tectonics when you reject basically ever other aspect of modern science.